Politics

安息吧，自由世界秩序

Mar 21, 2018 Richard Haass

新德里—法国哲学家、作家伏尔泰揶揄道，在运转了近一千后，衰颓的神圣罗马帝国既不神圣，也不罗马，更不是帝国。如今，两个半世纪过去了，用伏尔泰的话说，问题变成了：衰颓的自由世界秩序既不自由，也不具有世界性，更谈不上秩序。

二战爆发后，美国在英国和其他国家的紧密合作下，建立了自由世界秩序。其目标是绝不容许30年内导致两场世界大战的条件再度发生。

在这方面，民主国家致力于建立一套自由的国际体系，其中的自由是指它以法治和尊重各国主权和领土完整为基础。人权受到保护。所有这些都适用于全世界；与此同时，所有自愿的参与者都可以参与其中，促进和平（联合国）、经济发展（世界银行）以及贸易和投资（国际货币基金组织以及日后的世界贸易组织）的机构纷纷建立起来。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2000
155 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (Penguin Press, 2023).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 105 Comments on this article

Daniel Cantos Colmont Jan 3, 2019

No veo autocrìtica por ningun lado, el liberalismo se hundiò gracias a Reagan y Tatcher, el problema no està en Rusia ni en China ni en Venezuela, està en la hipocresìa de no llamar a las cosas por su nombre
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Desmond Johnson Jan 1, 2019

"comment has been deleted"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
weltaufrussusch Jan 1, 2019

"Есть несколько причин, почему всё это происходит и почему именно сейчас"

Во-первых "США – в тесном сотрудничестве с Британией и другими странами – основали либеральный мировой порядок" не основали, а пытались основать порядок, который закреплял господство англоязычных стран в мире об этом конкретно сказал Черчилл в известной речи 1946 года. И как полазало развитие - это было глупо.
И речь здесь идёт о навязывании своего видения мира потомками варваров цивилизациям - а это не пройдёт никогда.
Цивилизации всегда одержат верх над варварами, потому что у них имеются идеалы. Идеальное всегда одержит верх над материальным - потому как идеальное, в той либо иной степени бесконечно.

Второе о причинах - короткий анализ закономерности почему "увядающий либеральный мировой порядок не является ни либеральным, ни всемирным, ни упорядоченным"

Советую обратить внимание на понятие "утилитаризм", и то что за ним стоит.
Основоположником этого направления английской философии является Джереми Бентам, он пытался оценить, посчитать даже "счастье".

Он же я является одним из основоположников либерализма - поверхностного (корпоративного) взгляда на сущее - то бишь инфантилизм, ведущий к деградации, как личности цивилизованного человека, так и человечества.

Вот как раз феномены проявления, результаты, попытки Запада жить по канонам выше обозначенной "английской философии" и описывает автор.

Кстати, или не кстати - труп Джереми Бентама, одетый в костюм с восковой маской на лице, по его условиям пожертвования, до сих пор находится в главном здании Университетского колледжа Лондона.
То бишь - "мавзолей либерализма" возник на 92 года раньше мавзолея коммунизма...

Маркс называл этого теоретика либерализма "…гением буржуазной глупости" но это уже другая история... и Маркс здесь тоже не поможет.

Моё мнение - Мировая Смута закончится тем и тогда, когда при каждом "батальоне на Земле" будет находится русский* замполит.

Самим "США – в тесном сотрудничестве с Британией и другими странами" - из того положения, которое описал автор, из либерализма - не выбраться.

*русский тот, кто говорит по-русски, и таковым себя считает

ПС. просьба, обращаю внимание - читайте комментарии на русском, а то и учите русский язык - это развитие.
Сложный, обладающий свободой , многомерный язык, создаёт сложный многомерный мир - а это и есть пространство развития человека.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jonathan Story Jan 1, 2019

As usual, no critique of how America First ideas in modern guise came to the fore, other than through dei ex machina such as "nationalism" and "populism". They came to the fore because what are now dubbed "globalist" policies ignored the vital role that national states play in forming a world order, notably in the heartlands of Europe and the US. Extreme policies were adopted (the single currency, China in the WTO, open borders, a US of E) without consent. Had the policies been successful in terms of the people of North America and Europe, and had moderating mechanisms been introduced to mitigate likely fallouts(a pro-active industrial policy in the US with a strong focus on infrastructure, or a large fiscal arm to the Euro, or recognition that voters in national states want to select who lives among them) than the present situation could have been avoid. But it was not because incumbents in office became impervious to criticism, convinced of the rightness of their cause, ideologues, exactly the contrary of these present at the creation of the post-1945 world order. For a counter to the argument in this article, see my blog: https://storybookreview.wordpress.com/2018/07/17/president-trump-and-the-global-multilateral-order/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
smursidi Apr 17, 2018

The world is simply sick with the incoherence of liberalism and globalism. The decades since the end of the cold war did not see peace, but a lot of trampling around in the phoney name of "war on terror." The killing and of Saddam and Ghadaffi and the plundering of their countries on the pretext of WMD is blatantly showing the "weapon of mass deception" to the world. Business is corrupt to the bone. The Fed printed 16 trillion dollars to bail out the bankrupt banks run by bankster, the too big to fail, and too big too jail. We are just sick of it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Apr 10, 2018

The liberal world order failed all of us because it never truly embraced the liberalism it espoused. Their sacred "tenets" were used in an extremely selective manner. It allowed all kind of pandemonium across the globe. Whether in the form of Pinochet in Chile to the Castro's in Cuba; the Shah of Iran and then allowing the Ayatollahs of Qom to gain the throne; like in the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia to the jungles of Viet Nam; to the genocide in Rwanda to the man made famine in Ethiopia; to the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviets and the arming by the CIA of the Contra forces in Nicaragua. You name it and the liberal order through their United Nations proxy sold us cat meat as it were a juicy filet mignon. We were lead to believe that the order worked but it was dysfunctional since its creation. In the holy name of liberalism we were fed a daily dose of propaganda tailored made to our rosy colored view of the world but then slowly the fog started lifting; the cyber world brought to millions of citizens instant data that before it was next to impossible to acquire unless you were a professional scholar. Now it is at every man's fingertips (this forum is a clear example of the connectivity that currently exists in today's world). As such the planet's citizenry started seeing, chewing, analyzing, dissecting truths and lies, and what not in a quest for more knowledge. That wisdom that is being acquired in this present-day epoch is called "populism" or other "tags" depending on which side of the political spectrum you stand at.

Samuel P. Huntington in his classic book "Clash of Civilizations" explains to us how we got here and where we are headed. To blame Trump, Putin, Macron as well as Obama, Clinton, Tony Blair or Hollande is a hobby employed by contemporary pundits from both the left or right. The truth is that we have been slowly inheriting a world order that has been chaotic since its onset. Tell the dead in Kosovo or Bosnia how long before the liberal world order stopped the daily massacres that were occurring day and night; ask the Syrians who are dying like flies in cities like Douma; those Venezuelans who are incarcerated or murdered by their own government. Where is the United Nations? Our garden variety of elites? Condemning alone won't cure the malaises...and the United States for good or for worse seems to be getting tired of carrying the weight but let's blame Trump for its demise after all the need for a patsy is always there...

At the end of this arduous road, what tomorrow will bring is anybody's guess. I shudder at the world our upcoming generations will be bequeathed with. Total mayhem perhaps. But when the smoke clears and hopefully it won't be among the rubbles of mankind, if there is anyone to blame, it will be the architects of the new world order who because of timidity or indifference chose to ignore the dangers and confront them rather than spewing a barrage of meaningless words and actions that only helped in fomenting more anarchy among the global community.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barbara Ulrich Apr 8, 2018

One of the reasons rarely mentioned for the rise of populism stems from the changing economies in most liberal economies and either the incapacity or the unwillingness to devote the necessary budgets to improve education and training opportunities so that workers can be retrained to participate in these new economies. Another reason rarely mentioned is the income growing disparity: management incomes greatly increased but not the workers' and thus a growing sense of (justified) injustice. Most liberal democracies, aside from the Scandinavian countries, are themselves responsible for the current rise in ill-informed, uneducated, angry populism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Julius Klein Apr 7, 2018

Another example of how the Elite class likes to twist the narrative. Let’s be honest, the Elite classes from Business, McMedia and the government have used the “cover” of liberalism to rig the system th maces and fri bds. And the lowly masses are responding the only way they can - voting against it. They are going to eat the Elite alive, they just have not realized it yet they keep blamin Trump and many other non factors, unable to recognize they own duplicitous role.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Donna Niewiaroski Apr 3, 2018

I would like to suggest that global economic unrest is due primarily not to the spread of technology but what preceded that -- the apportionment of a vast percentage of the worlds wealth to a very few, creating extraordinary disparity in income and circumstances. Globalization has facilitated the disparity, creating mechanisms to perpetuate it, holding sway over international economic institutions; the liberal economic order is indeed un-liberally managed, accruing the benefits to dominant developed nations and corporate interests; corporations substantially influence politics to a degree that it can be plausibly said that the political decisions of nations are determined by corporate monies and power. Finally, rent-seeking dominates wealth creation thus creates nothing of real value for populations except perpetuation of wealth for the tiny sliver that owns it. Populism can only be inevitable in such a scenario; I believe Marx said something like that.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Stephen Higgins Mar 31, 2018

Something is backwards in this article. It is the social democracy (a blend of socialism and liberalism) of the Western World that is the political extreme. There is a movement toward a more natural way of human life and it is called populism. It is motivated by people who are fed up with governments making decisions that go against the majority opinion of the people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lord Adusei Mar 29, 2018

The liberal order was built on the exploitation of brown, black and yellow people. The United States for instance priorized strategic and economic interests over human rights and rule of law in several countries including in South Africa where apartheid and the abuse of majority black Africans by the white minority never attracted condemnation from Western liberal economies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
keithwil Mar 28, 2018

I don't suppose that all of them disarming their citizens ever had anything to do with their perennial troubles
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matthew McCarthy Mar 27, 2018

This article illustrates some of the problems that the "liberal world order" is suffering from. If you think realistically about the world after WWII compared to the world today, there is no realistic way to say the US was a "principle beneficiary" of this world order. Compare Germany today to the wreckage of the divided Germany after WWII. Bombed out Europe in general after WWII to Europe today. The entire world has benefited greatly from this 'liberal world order'. The narrative of the US as a principle beneficiary is really an excuse for why the US should accept the burdens of maintaining the world order. After WWII many of the major powers of the world had basically blown themselves up in pursuit of empire, the US had not. There was no-one to share the burdens with, so the US had to shoulder it. The world has changed and other folks have to participate if they want things to continue. NATO is the poster child for this. The charter includes a provision for all countries to maintain their own militaries, but many are not realistically doing so. NATO was not losing credibility as an alliance because the US isn't committed, it had lost credibility as an alliance because in some ways the US is the only one participating. What kind of alliance is that?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Mar 27, 2018

Liberal world order == American Imperialism dressed up like a prostitute.

If we want equality and justice in this world,we have to hang the corrupt,politicians and citizens(bcs they arent alone in this the politicians,your average john doe participates in the tricks of the few,hoping to get some leftovers from the rich man's table..so stupid).
We have to "clean " the earth from the neonazis and the pollution of the big corporations that steal resources from poor countries and leave behind hell for the local populations.We need to hang all those who play unethical games in order to get richer.We need to change the world idea of what it means to be human,to be in a society.and we need to demand from all members to accept the principle of equal rights,and justice for all .And of course ,food and shelter for all.Then we can talk about the human society.
What we had all these years was for some good and for many hell.
So i claim it is a good thing the USA has reached this limit,this stage.Now the Americna s will feel what the foreign citizens felt for decades ,from the US imperialism and the greed of the US population for cheap stuff..with no questions asked..
All who participated in this life style knew,and chose to ignore what was happening to others.So now ,if USA goes to hel,we will be watching a repeat of our own stories..
Join the honest ,just,equal world idea,or die in horrible pain and suffering from the wars that the 1% will create to get rid of those who ask for rights,equality, preservation of the environment or food for all.
They want only robots and smart assholes who can program them before they follow us to the poverty land.
The poor will eat the rich alive if we dont share equally this planet's resources,because they are too many to stop..
- Peter Schaeffer Mar 29, 2018
  
  "American Imperialism dressed up like a prostitute" - That's offensive to prostitutes.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack Kalpakian Mar 27, 2018

This is correct, and it is time to assign blame. The last two Democratic Administrations stand to take most of the blame. Clinton revived the Cold War and Obama armed violent genocidal "moderates" in Syria and Libya eliciting the current Putinist reaction in Russia and China.
- george sos Mar 27, 2018
  
  Is this your suggestion for the future,assigning blame??or is it just an opportunity to spill your hate towards anything humane and rational??
  Bush family destroyed UN and all global consensus only to satisfy few rich oil thirsty vultures ,with the help of stupid people who buy the terrorism story and justify torture..
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Mullen Mar 27, 2018

What happened to the liberal world order. The good news is, the US ("we") defeated the Soviet Union. The bad news is in the course of doing that we developed some bad habits. For example overthrowing elected governments ostensibly to spread democracy. See the book Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. A related habit is our directly or via proxies sending money and weapons into civil war zones -- for example Syria. What is most insidious is we titrate (i.e. adjust and balance) the flow so that there is never a clear winner. The war continues forever. The country is pulverized, the people are displaced ... free, even forced, to destabilize neighboring countries. This is what we do every time -- it must be our goal. For example last month the question was, how can we maintain a presence in Syria if ISIS is expelled?
Don't worry, we found a way.
The other bad habit was gradually removing the actual levers of government from the hands of the citizens. It was a great idea to build up the economies of Japan and Germany after WW2, but somehow we forgot that Americans need jobs too. As trade deficits increase we are presented with every sort of non-sequiter argument why each proposed corrective action will backfire. The same technique is used to justify not limiting immigration. We do nothing to fix these problems. We call names like populist or racist or xenophobe. What are we really saying? We are saying we are are not really a democracy. We do not really believe in government by the people. If the people want the wrong things (things bad for trade, bad for bankers, bad for the military) they just need to be thwarted until they understand.
That is the system we live under and that is the system we export: Endless wars, weak borders, and the rhetoric of democracy.
- David Blair Mar 31, 2018
  
  Well said.
  - Krzysztof Worytkiewicz Apr 1, 2018
    
    US liberals should realise that the problem with their country is much deeper than that. So foundational genocide and slavery-based economy were mere "bad habits" as well?.. Btw the USA were formally not a democracy until 1964 (unless you call apartheid (a.k.a Jim Crow in this case) democratic).
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Baglesworth Mar 27, 2018

It's funny I see governments intentionally failing to secure boarders, and ahatred of their Christian heritage. I see an elite with no regard for democracy. The rest of us are just waiting and hoping we correct course but expecting the storm.
- george sos Mar 27, 2018
  
  no regard for racism and hate like yours actually... .
  no more tolerating your hate speech and your lies.
  no more nazi propaganda.
  we will destroy every racist .
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
department203 Mar 26, 2018

"America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point." When I hear things like this, I wonder when the rest of the world is going to start taking up some responsibility for their own affairs. NATO is a perfect example. Most NATO members are rich, modern liberal democracies. The EU is the equivalent of the US economically. Why is it, then, that the US is held responsible for its defense? When is Europe going to start investing in its own defense? As members of NATO they are required to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Only the US, the UK, Estonia, Greece and Poland meet this requirement. This leaves 20 countries, including Germany and France, who do not pull their weight. Ten of them spend 1% or less! This is not a xenophobic retreat from world liberalism, it is the US finally beginning to understand that other nations expect us, and only us, to sacrifice, and they're taking advantage of us. The American voter is sick of it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Malthus Anderson Mar 26, 2018

Stagnating incomes and job losses can be directly attributed to the rapid acceptance of neo-liberalism these last 40 years.
Reverse neo-liberalism and undo fractional reserve banking to begin to close the income gap that is debilitating all of our societies around the world. That's all that's needed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
bcastleberry Mar 26, 2018

You say New Technologies is what drives income stagnation and job loss. You are blind. A perfect example to what you don't know is a typical construction job in 1977 paid between $5 and $10 an hour. That same job now pays between 10$ and $15 an hour. This solely because of cheap labor from Mexico. I have done alot of research and everyone wants to blame young people for not wanting to work. When the problem is why work doing that hard labor for $10 when you can find a lot easier jod paying the same. The real peoblem is Corporate greed. In the past a worker with experience was worth what ever you could pay now we fire them or force them to retire so stock prices will rise maybe a dollar. Hedge funds control to much stock and dictate to CEO's to make their stock rise by laying off people and if they don't the CEO won't have a job the next stock holders meeting. Who is left out in this economy. The middle class and lower income people because they can't fight the system. That's why Doanld Trump got elected. And if Corporations don't change you will see it get worse. We are tired of being kicked around by people like you who think they know everything because of some Liberal 8 year education.
Get out of your ivory tower and see the real world for a change. Since 1977 and now our incomes have risen on average for middle to lower incomes 28.5% inflation since 1970 has risen 2275.23%. Now tell me that this is all because of technology. Sorry for my language but horse shit!!! We are no longer an industrialized country and that hurts the lower to middle class the most. All for the sake of a lie ( Global warming is a farse ). And don't forget corp. greed. They are making more money than ever but we never see a peice of that, all we see is get rid of them so we can hire younger cheaper labor.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
laurencesoronen Mar 26, 2018

The author states that the U.S. President has attacked U.S. media, courts and law enforcement. Had the author been honest, he'd acknowledge that the media and law enforcement have been engaged in a search and destroy mission against the duly elected President for 18 months or more. The President has merely had the temerity to fight back.
- M D Mar 26, 2018
  
  I'm glad you've made this comment. The only thing more appalling to me than Trump himself has been the hysterical targeting of him by the establishment and the MSM. I've even read Trump-slurs in make-up articles.
  
  For those say "fine, he deserves it" then just wait, because one day it'll be 'your guy' running that gauntlet.
  
  I remember when the Podesta emails leaked. The front page of the NYT – instead of denouncing the criminality of the DNC actions to undermine the Bernie Sanders campaign – was plastered with "The Russians! The Russians did it!". Like someone had crapped their shorts, reached for a drawer called 'Playbooks' and, fumbling, pulled out the one that said 'Cold War'. And they've been sticking to it since.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ted Peters Mar 26, 2018

The problem with the liberal world order was that the only country which could afford to fully participate was the US. That's not true anymore.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe S54 Mar 26, 2018

The "liberal world order" has been disintegrating for 25 years. Its loving embrace of communist China made a mockery of whatever purpose it once supposedly served.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Mar 26, 2018

Hi Richard,

Always a great read!

If the liberal elites had merely insured that globalization had worked for the majority of people, there wouldn't be such a mad dash away from it. (Where? Anywhere but Here!)

Many of the elites would've outdone Marie Antoinette in the, 'Do the peasants have no bread? Well let them eat cake!' competition for insensitivity.

They brought it on themselves. Now, populism will rule.

Still, it could all be saved by a concerted push by all liberal states towards ensuring that their economies actually work for those in the bottom two quintiles.

As always, very best regards, JBS
https://lettertobritain.com/2018/03/25/tariff-change-america/
- Michael Public Mar 26, 2018
  
  I think you should rather say that "FOR now, populism will rule!". After a while there will be a violent reaction back into the arms of the elite neoliberals, only after a few years to oscillate back to populism. And so ad nauseum, until voters start putting some real effort into it all.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrés Galia Mar 26, 2018

This article is a joke. The author blames stagnation income due to immigration and technology and he "fotgets" to mention than 1% of the population makes more money than 50% of the world population.

The main problem is that the respect for the law and human rights by the western countries was a myth created to impose their agenda. Otherwise one cannot understand the western liberal countries putting up with guys like Franco, Marcos, Stroesner, Pinochet and the likes.

For the liberal western countries the only dictators were the ones that never allowed them to get away with murder.
- Michael Public Mar 26, 2018
  
  It is more accurate to focus on asset inequality than income inequality. This is because the income of the 1% is capitalised onto their investment while the income of the rest is used to buy diapers.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schaeffer Mar 26, 2018
  
  The cosmopolitan elite that Haass loves the status quo. Soaring inequality is positive good, if you are one of the beneficiaries. "Free trade" and Open Borders increase inequality and are obviously good things. Of course, if anyone challenges the status quo, the elite hasn't hesitated to beat the drums of "racism", "sexism", and "Islamophobia" to great effect. Hillary was a case in point. Quote
  
  "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow," Clinton asked, "would that end racism?"
  
  In real life, inequality has risen dramatically since 1980 along with hysterical rhetoric about "racism". Real "racism" has almost disappeared, but the power of "racism" (as a propaganda device) has never been more powerful.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Mar 25, 2018

This Liberal Order everyone dislikes, was sold as a way to prevent major world wars. To trash it, is, thus, the worst omen, be it because of its own merits or just because of folly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Mar 25, 2018

"It was also a principal beneficiary" Wow is that far off. Anyone familiar with the US trade deficit would laugh at such a claim. A better description might be the US was (and still is) the “designated loser” in world trade. There have several important studies of the impact of US trade policy since 2000. The titles tell you a lot. “Import Competition and the Great US Employment Sag of the 2000s”, “Trade Liberalization and Mortality: Evidence from U.S. Counties”, “Foreign Competition and Domestic Innovation: Evidence from U.S. Patents”, and “Putting a Smiley Face on the Dragon”. The contents of these papers tell a compelling story. US trade policy has been a staggering disaster for most (but not all) Americans.

Have the outsourcers benefited from “free trade”? Sure they have. Have the cheap labor exploiter benefited from Open Borders? Sure they have. Have the cosmopolitan elites benefited? Of course. Ordinary Americans? Not so much.

The claim that technology (rather than trade plus immigration) has destroyed the middle-class is a mantra of the left (and part of the right as well). Unfortunately, it is not true. Check the FRED series MANEMP for the actual numbers. US manufacturing employment crashed under Bush (43) and Obama. Did some massive productivity boom occur over the same period? Not exactly. Of course, mass unskilled immigration has devastated the lives of millions of Americans, will leaving US. public schools in ruins. California once had high real wages for workers, affordable housing, great schools, and relatively low inequality. Now it has low wages, unaffordable housing, mass poverty, failed schools, and high inequality. That said, Open Borders are the religion of the left.

Of course, the very idea that one U.S. president could terminate a “liberal world order” that was obviously so beneficial, is absurd. No U.S. president has anything approach that much power. The truth is that “liberal world order” has been failing for a long time and Trump has dared to say what lots of people know.

It should be obvious that with anti-liberal powers gaining all over the world (Russia, China, Turkey, etc.), the “liberal world order” was going to decline. Several years ago (long before Trump), China became the dominant economic power of the world. China has no use for the “liberal world order” and was never going to support it. China alone killed the dominance of the “liberal world order”. Given that China’s GDP will be 3X the U.S. by 2030-2040, the world was going to massively change one way or another. Trump is simply pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

The sad truth is the U.S. dominance peaked more than 70 years ago. After WWII, the U.S. accounted for 1/3rd of world GDP and 50% of world manufactured output (and CO2 production). Now the U.S. is well below 1/6th of world output. Back then, the U.S. controlled world oil, aviation, banking, telecoms, currency transfers, etc. None of these de facto powers exist anymore .

The idea that the US can prop up (or destroy) a “liberal world order” is rooted in a past that no long exists. The world has moved on. It well past time, for cosmopolitan elites (in Europe and the USA) to do the same.

The “liberal world order” was a paradise of neoliberals and the practitioners of racial/ethnic/sexual identity politics. For the rest of the people, not so much. In a democracy, a failed system get voted out of office. Brexit, Trump, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austria, etc. all come to mind.
- Brian Kullman Mar 26, 2018
  
  Thank you for your counterpoints.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Sweeney Mar 25, 2018

Before Trump's election Haas and his ilk would have been excoriating the U.S. for its overweening power and military excursions if defense of liberty. A lot of us have taken him at his word and said, "Fine. Keep your world. If you want a "liberal" society, make it yourselves."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stan Sorscher Mar 25, 2018

The purpose of an economy is to raise living standards, not divert glittering wealth to a few. A political system will be seen as legitimate if it manages the economy appropriately. Donald Trump's election tells us one simple thing - millions of voters trust him more than the neoliberal establishment.

Neoliberalism works for Riachard Haass. Not me.

Who got the gains from globalization? Not me.

Who do I trust to manage the global economy. Not Richard Haass.

And please share me all that crap about technology. Our political system can share gains from trade, productivity, and innovation fairly, and retain legitimacy, or unfairly, and fall into the dustbin of history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Mar 25, 2018

Richard Haass seems to write the same essay, a refusal to assess the reasons why the global "order' is evolving and instead indulges in hand-wringing because it is evolving. He insists on calling the existing, and deteriorating, set of international arrangements "liberal," when it is "neoliberal." Didn't John Kerry, when he ran for POTUS, decry "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who were offshoring US jobs to low-wage, no environmental standards countries? If anything, the situation has gotten worse.

The current order is run for the benefit of multinational corporations and global financial institutions. Although the wretched of the earth are less wretched, the cost has been born by workers and organized labour organizations in the West. There are no such institutions in the developing world. The macro level benefits of the sort of globalization experienced has been much less than the growth based on scale, specialization and efficiency had been promised by economists and proponents of "hyper globalization"(thanks, Prof. Rodrick for the word). In addition, the micro level effects on relative costs and benefits have been greater by several factors over the macro benefits. The dead weight losses faced by people whose jobs and human and physical capital were lost, including homes, family breakdown, dying communities, seem to be ignored by the spokespersons of the establishment.

Both neoliberal and mercantilist approaches to international relations represent extremes. Countries are rebelling against the former and seeking to impose elements of the latter because, as has been the case for Japan, China, and South Korea, modified mercantilism works for the national benefit.

Perhaps the bright lights at the Council for Foreign Relations can stop rationalizing the neoliberal world order imposed by the triumphalist US and try to make a case for "managed globalization," managed in the national interest, not for the benefit of the ruling elites.

Start with countervailing tariffs that aim at eliminating unfair trade practices based on dumping and wage suppression, not on productivity advantages. Provide subsidies to re-establish supply chains that had been destroyed by beggar-thy-neighbour policies practiced by trade "partners." Stop financial institution from financing takeovers of vital, leading edge US corporations because subsequent cost-cutting to retire debt just reduces innovative capacities as well as employment.

A national economy should work for all the people.
- Curtis Carpenter Mar 25, 2018
  
  "Perhaps the bright lights at the Council for Foreign Relations can stop rationalizing the neoliberal world order imposed by the triumphalist US and try to make a case for "managed globalization," managed in the national interest, not for the benefit of the ruling elites."
  
  Before anyone tries to make a case for managed globalization, perhaps it would be wise to give some serious thought to who defines "the national interest" and on what terms first.
  
  Meanwhile, a national economy that works "for all the people" is suspect. You mean, I think, that a national economy should work for SOME of the people -- namely those that happen to enjoy a given nationality. The people in that other country are on their own at best.
  
  Shouldn't "managed globalization" reflect _global_ interests? Or be put down as a utopian ideal in the first place?
  - John Sweeney Mar 25, 2018
    
    Good comment. I suspect the only "global interest" out there is the environment.
    - Curtis Carpenter Mar 25, 2018
      
      And even the environment is a vague afterthought for most national governments -- especially my own under Trump.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Basle Jean-Luc Mar 25, 2018

As the former President of the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard Haass is serving is us a good dosage of Americana/Britannica. Cecile Rhodes thought the world should be led by Anglo-Saxons. A little Austrian man thought fifty years later that Germans should lead the world. When you think of it, the two ideas are not very far apart. Strangely, Mr. Haass is unaware of the crimes committed by the United States – for a good cause, of course – since World War II. Yet, those have been very well publicized. Does Mr. Haass know that about two-third of mankind regards the United States as the greatest threat to world peace. I could go on but this would be a waste of my time.
- Brian Kullman Mar 26, 2018
  
  The UK thought it could rule the world at the point of a swagger stick. Germany thought it could rule Europe at the point of a bayonet. Both were badly mistaken.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shaun Narine Mar 25, 2018

This article has some things right, but an awful lot of things wrong. The US' commitment to a "liberal order" has always been highly suspect and conditional - respect for sovereignty and international law, for example, is something that every American administration has treated as dependent on whether or not obeying the rules corresponds to US interests. But even if we allow that the US, in general, pushed towards something like a "liberal order" this began disintegrating with the administration of George W. Bush. It is incredible that Haas can- rightly- single out Russia for violating the norms of the system by changing border through force without noting that the US decision to invade a sovereign state - Iraq - under false pretenses and as part of a larger, intended effort to rearrange the entire Middle East through force was a far greater blow to the "liberal international order" than anything Russia has done since. We are still living with the consequences of that US decision to treat the international system as a chew toy. The fact that other states decided US actions created openings for their egregious behavior should not surprise anyone. Yes, Trump is transparently awful and dangerous as US President, but is he worse than Bush? So far, no - he only has the potential to be even worse. Haas' evident blindspots underlines another reason why the US continues to stumble: the "foreign policy establishment" of the US, both intellectual and political, is remarkably blind and self-delusional about what the US is, how it acts, and how it is perceived in the rest of the world. Until people like Haas can turn a critical eye on US conduct and intentions, this problem will continue.
- Michael Public Mar 26, 2018
  
  The US abuses a lot of words. Any of these never really mean what they purport to mean. Liberal. Populist. Terrorist. Capitalism. Justice. Trade. Tax. Racist. Immigrant. Fake.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
mac Mahmood Mar 25, 2018

The liberal world order came about as a by product of the end of WW2 when Churchill and the French managed to introduce the fear of juju with respect to the USSR into the mind of the postwar US ruling establishment in order to rope the US in into defending their imperial interests and the US promptly set about forming an worldwide alliance of states by promoting and sustaining the most illiberal regimes in those In fact it will not be an exaggeration to suggest that lack of liberalism was a sine qua non for admission into that alliance. Through the years the US has enabled the most egregious human rights abuses such as those of the Palestinians whose continued dispossession and exile from their country is in no small measure the result of policies, still being pursued with renewed vigour even after the advent of the populists - (no difference between the liberals and populists there!) - that the US adopted since WW1. Liberal order in the US did not show its face until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Johnson was a racist, but he had a war of human rights and democracy to win against the Soviets. He succeeded - against himself and, to a degree, the Soviets too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Douglas Leyendecker Mar 25, 2018

The larger and more complex any system gets the more systemic risk builds. And the way you fix a very very large and very very complex problem is by breaking it into smaller more manageable parts.

It is only natural that the ebb of nationalism follow the flow of globalism. Citizens feeling insecure with more insecurity coming are naturally going to want to save the family farm. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that the United States has basically subsidized growing global prosperity. Nice that you have a growing middle class, China. We have a shrinking one.

U.S. debt to GDP has tripled. The U.S. has become economically dependent on the "wealth effect " and financial services. Conservative savers have been forced into the casino of public securities. Wages have stagnated for decades for the non tech, non financial worker. A state college degree costs over $100K in a world where the median household income is $60K. Health "insurance" and health care costs are also not affordable to the average citizen. Life expectancy is now starting to decline. Our unrecognized liabilities for retirement and health care are in the mega trillions.

How can one promote globalization over nationalism when it is so obvious the US has been putting lipstick on the pig to keep our economic wheels on all the while subsidizing growing global prosperity. When you look around and can't point out the sucker in the room it's you.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Mar 23, 2018

The 'liberal world order' was always very partial only. It worked rather well, wherever the historic conditions, the local elites, and the aspirations of a broader public went for it. It did not really work in Latin America, not in Cuba, not in Marcos-Philippines, and most certainly not in Africa. Even in the USA, despite its great constitutional history and democratic experience, the loss of liberal order, the erosion of the national creed is frightening. In transition countries of our times, the political and financial support of crooks, only since they 'our crooks' is cynical but not liberal, as it always was.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cory Newton Mar 21, 2018

The maintenance of the liberal order, has led to American Uni-Polar over-extension & decline which sets the stage for the coming multi-polar regional realignment.
- stephan Edwards Mar 21, 2018
  
  The realignment is perhaps inevitable. The problem no one wishes to acknowledge is how much blood will be involved. Nations do not go quietly into the night and rarely alone. Humans aren't wired that way. And for all the proclamations of global loyalties or loyalties to mankind overriding any other. If anyone be it China, Russia or the US perceives themselves losing big they will pull the trigger or they may do so by accident. Either way No one wins but for many nations no winner beats someone else winning. A bit of a problem wouldn't you say?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
minivakan minivakan Mar 21, 2018

STOP Pax Americana. Stop parasite. We also want to live. Democracy is not the rule of the people, but the rule of the American people over others? A multipolar world is better than the dictatorship of the West.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Mar 21, 2018

The problem in US anyway and I don't claim to speak for anywhere else. Is the Global Order you are so proud of totally and utterly failed the .....Plebes perhaps is the word and they completely an utterly hate it! The elites you are so proud of defecated on their own people in the name of your "Global Liberal Order". They sacrificed their own peoples interests in the name of "Free Trade" & "Globalization" . The fact that these sacrifices coincidentally made the politicians and connected who supported them rich did not go unnoticed. The plebes have developed a (Well Founded) suspicion that the elites are sacrificing their interests in favor of the Campaign Donor class.

I'm not just talking out of my hat, I watched my former employer get a tax write off for shipping 2,000 jobs to Mexico. About that point I developed a theory that "Globalization" & "Free Trade" was designed to make the rich richer and the rest of us much, much poorer. I'm hardly unique. But "Free Trade" creates more jobs then it takes away you cry. But the jobs it creates are either service jobs that don't pay enough to live on or the jobs created are the ones that go to the children of the upper middle class and upper class not blue collars.

Well go to College you cry: One: Not everyone who doesn't go to college is lazy mouth breathing redneck despite the views so common among the coastal yuppies. Some people just aren't suited to sit in a classroom for 4 years even if there enough openings in colleges and there isn't.
2nd: A pretty fair number of the losers in this game called "Globalization" fall in the group everyone pretends doesn't exist. Their families make too much money for much help and not enough to actually send their kids to college. needless to say they don't love the system either.

But the single biggest problem Mr Haass is starting in the late 70 to early 80's all the gains be they in productivity from automation or from "Free Trade" & "Globalization"
have been reserved for the winners at the top for the rest of us the answer has been tough.....s....Luck don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
We don't care about your "Wonderful" liberal order we have NO stake in it anymore. That was reserved for the chosen winners. When all the winnings are reserved for the rich and connected change any change looks better for the losers then the Status Quo. Then the losers will support anything to change it even if that change comes with Jackboots or Brown shirts. But take pride Mr. Haass, The backlash against the "Liberal Order" & "Globalization" You are so proud of was created by you and your fellows at the top of the pyramid when you and your fellows decided the winnings were only for the right people. So take pride in what you winners have created you own it!
- Paul Ross Mar 21, 2018
  
  Your solution then? Beside diatribes? Dis-invent technology? Become a luddite? Wage a few wars to thin the herd?
  
  By the way, your complaints were originally those of the hyper-liberal protestors you all hated. Remember the Seattle WTO protests and the Womblies?
  
  But the world is, as the world is. Your own President's tax package continues to benefit moving jobs overseas, sorry, but it's true. Your steel tariffs will cost far more jobs than it saves, true now as it was in the 70s.
  
  Technology, and cost of transporting goods are at the heart of job losses, neither one of which you have any control over.
  
  Unless you adapt, you choices are limited to diatribes on webpages.
  - Paul Ross Mar 21, 2018
    
    Correction Wobblies, not womblies.
    - P. Kamath Mar 22, 2018
      
      "...Technology, and cost of transporting goods are at the heart of job losses, neither one of which you have any control over...."
      Right, you can not keep knowledge under lock and key anymore! It proliferates with students in tech. Universities, papers, trade shows, tv , radio , UTube and buyers demands to pass on when orders are placed for merchandize and end results. A smart Korean engineer is no different from US one.
      World is changing in all walks of life!
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    - stephan Edwards Mar 21, 2018
      
      So I am to say thank you sir may I have another sodomizing in the name of company profits?
      One I didn't vote for him I voted for the Gary Johnson.
      
      Two. The changes I am hardly a Luddite the changes are inevitable My OBJECTION MR. Winner sir is the winner take all results with everyone else being F-cked over so the rich can get richer. Combined with the complete and utter destruction of the social welfare net such has it was. Not to mention the pricing of education out of reach of the masses? I am NOT a Luddite sir I am a pragmatist. Unless things change the violence is inevitable NO reason not too. And NO ONE will win, not the rich, not the poor, the result will be an authoritarian dictatorship knee deep in the dead. A result I personally would like to avoid. But if everything continues the way it is winner take all, losers accept third world wages and living conditions there is NO reason not to pull the trigger. Your proud Globalization, Free Trade Liberal order has been a race to the bottom for working conditions and wages. You should take pride in the violence that you and those like you are effectively calling for.The winnings are for the few for the losers ....Dystopia!
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Tim Morgan Mar 21, 2018
  
  True.
  
  Moreover, if you outsource well-paid jobs, but keep pushing the consumerist message, the only way of bridging the gap is to make credit ever cheaper, and ever easier to get. Hence "deregulation". Hence the 2008 crash. And the next one.
  
  Then, when deregulated finance causes a disaster, the erstwhile advocates of "market forces" and "small government" go running to the taxpayer to avoid the wipe-out decreed as the consequence of folly by those self-same market forces. Whereupon, the state steps in, rescuing not just the banks, but the bankers too.
  
  Tragically - for those of us who believe in capitalism, but not the crony version - this regime has lost any shred of credibility with the public.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Morgan Mar 21, 2018

Unfortunately, the word "liberal", like "freedom", has been debased and hijacked beyond any real meaning.

In economic terms, "liberal" these days probably refers most often to the "Anglo-American economic model", which gives wealthy nations, corporates and individuals carte blanche to use their power and wealth as best suits them. That model is dying, just as surely as Soviet collectivism died at the end of the 1980s - and even fewer (outside Davos) will mourn its passing.

The real issue is that we don't know what replaces it. The elites fear the answer will be what they deride as "populism" (as opposed, one wonders, to their own "unpopulism"?) Other candidates for the new orthodoxy might be collectivism, or China-style central direction.

We must just hope that it's none of these. Perhaps the co-operative/mutual model offers the best hope for a truly "liberal" future.
- Phil Cartier Apr 1, 2018
  
  The USA has a perfectly good constitution designed by some very dedicated people that provides a good basis for government. The only problem is they didn't understand how wildly successful it would become, and how LARGE it would become, nor how it would be undermined by irrational polices and beliefs and gross misconduct of the politicians.
  
  Self-correcting government disappeared around 1900, in many "advanced" countries or regions.
  
  Populism, if it is meant as broad-based popular elections, is just as bad or even worse. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind. In the US we are close to the brink- 5 large, neoliberal cities control enough of the vote to decide most national elections. The only reason they didn't last time was the neoliberals ran the worst candidate they could find, one who had the most baggage and controlled the most money. Fortuntately the electoral college system worked ;the way it was supposed to, since the other candidate won more states, as opposed to more individual votes.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Mar 21, 2018

"The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike". It is difficult to imagine China–which is picking up the torch that America dropped–doing a worse job and easy to imagine them bringing genuine freedom, peace and prosperity to the globe. Bring it on.
- Guido Penido Mar 21, 2018
  
  China bringing genuine freedom, that was a good joke!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 21, 2018

Good riddance. This so called liberal world order had a lot to be desired. For instance hard power was often used to install vicious dictators in foreign states. Liberty for Americans is not the same as liberty for all. It is preferable that nations find their own way to what is moral, your standards cannot be forced upon others with aircraft carrier diplomacy and a couple of Disney films.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/fnW8aJBzh

安息吧，自由世界秩序

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Europe in the Time of Trump

Log in/Register

安息吧，自由世界秩序

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification